A History of Ideas in Ichnology - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 13

terrestrial trace fossils were difficult to compare with the Paleozoic examples
found by later generations of geologists and, until continental ichnology emerged
as a field of research, Hitchcock's work on invertebrate traces lay fallow.
Other early workers on invertebrate trace fossils, for example, James Hall,
Elkanah Billings, and L´o Lesquereux (Supplementary Material: http://book
site.elsevier.com/9780444538130 ) usually ascribed them to fucoids. The first
trace fossil to be named in North America was Fucoides ( Cladorytes ,now
Arthrophycus ) alleghaniensis ( Rindsberg and Martin, 2003 ) from the Silurian
of Pennsylvania, but it was set within the realm of botany, not ichnology. James
Hall, who had firsthand experience of the New England coast, did figure a few
Paleozoic “molluscan” trails. Hall taught many North American geologists, and
they followed his interpretation of fucoids .
Accordingly, the development of ichnology in North America radiated from
two independent centers: a Canadian School of professional geologists centered
at the Geological Survey of Canada, and a partly New York-inspired Cincinnati
School consisting of self-taught paleontologists ( Pemberton et al., 2007 ). Both
schools had impact and worked somewhat in isolation from active European
researchers. This isolation not only had its negative aspects but also allowed
American workers to explain these obscure structures in novel ways.
The Canadian geoscientists William Logan and J. William Dawson, who
were well acquainted with the seashore, were quick to dismiss the fucoid origin
and ready to consider other options. This resulted in insightful observations
such as Dawson's interpretation of Rusophycus , Arthrophycus , and Nereites
as products of burrowing trilobites. The interpretation of Rusophycus as a
trilobite trace predated the first European to come to the same conclusion by
almost 15 years ( Pemberton et al., 2007 ). Although these views were widely
disseminated, for the most part Europeans did not agree, having already set their
minds. However, when Logan similarly interpreted traces unknown in Europe,
Climactichnites and Protichnites as locomotion traces, there was no disagree-
ment that they were made by animals.
The Cincinnati School started work in a landscape as rich in fossils as to
demand attention fromamateurs, some of whombecame authors. Samuel Almond
Miller, C. B. Dyer, Uriah P. James, and others contributed to the roster of fucoids
before Joseph F. James, a nephewofU. P. James, ushered in the Period of Reaction
(Supplementary Material: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444538130 ).
6.4 The Rise of Vertebrate Ichnology
For its influence, Edward Hitchcock subsequently became known as the father
of vertebrate ichnology. Nevertheless, he was not the first to study vertebrate
tracks. The first scientific studies on vertebrate traces, which appeared in a
series of short newspapers, magazines, and journal articles between 1828 and
1831, referred to tracks found in Permian sandstones in Scotland. First inter-
preted as turtle tracks, and therefore named Chelichnus , they attracted much